In this video Ven, Abhaya asks supporters to give cash instead of giving robes. (because they have excess supply)
He compares monks handling money to a cash handled by a lay person.
He fails to disclose that it is the tenth precept undertaken by a monk.
Please see the discussion on this topic.

Thank you, Lal, in your opinion what is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?
Do you think Anatta is a pre-Buddha's teaching?

Only a Buddha can reveal the three words (anicca, dukkha, anatta) to the world.
“Attakkara theenapada Sambuddhena pakasitha, na hi sila vatan hotu uppajjatthi Tathagata“, which means, “a Buddha (Tathagata) is born NOT just to show how to live a moral life, but to reveal three words (theenapada) to the world” .

Anicca – that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness in the long run.
Dukkha – despite our struggles, we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures if we remain in the rebirth process. The truth about Dukkha is not the feeling of dukkha, but that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments.
Anatta – therefore, one is truly helpless in this struggle to attain “something of essence in this world”. The only refuge is in Nibbana.

So, there is no way to become a Sotapanna if one believes anicca is impermanence, dukkha is suffering (not the cause of suffering), and anatta is “no self”.

Here is an important point that needs to be given some thought for those who believe anatta means “no self” I am not saying this in a derogatory way, but just to emphasize the importance of it. The true meanings have been covered not due to intentional acts by anyone, as I have explained in the post: https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... retations/.

The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.

There are six things that a Sotapanna is incapable of: killing mother or father, killing an Arahant, injuring a Buddha, knowingly causing schism in Sangha, and having niyata micca ditthi or established wrong views.
The first five are anantariya papa kamma, i.e., one WILL be born in the apayas when one dies. If one has having niyata micca ditthi, then one has not lost the POTENTIAL to be born in the apayas in the future.

In the Ratana sutta: "..Catūhapāyehi ca vippamutto,
Chaccābhiṭhānāni abhabba kātuṃ";
Or “..catu apeye hi ca vippamutto, cha ca abhithanani abhabba katum” or “(A Sotapanna is) free of the four apayas, and impossible (abhabba) for him/her to do (katum) six (cha) major wrong doings (abhithanani), which includes five anantariya papa kamma and niyata mica ditthi".

It appears Ven. Abhaya got another sutta in a wrong way.
He criticise the monk who practices on Attika (bone) and seen a woman who met on the road as a bag of bones.
He says this monk had Sannna Vipalassa.

Thank you, Lal, in your opinion what is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?
Do you think Anatta is a pre-Buddha's teaching?

Only a Buddha can reveal the three words (anicca, dukkha, anatta) to the world.
“Attakkara theenapada Sambuddhena pakasitha, na hi sila vatan hotu uppajjatthi Tathagata“, which means, “a Buddha (Tathagata) is born NOT just to show how to live a moral life, but to reveal three words (theenapada) to the world” .

Anicca – that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness in the long run.
Dukkha – despite our struggles, we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures if we remain in the rebirth process. The truth about Dukkha is not the feeling of dukkha, but that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments.
Anatta – therefore, one is truly helpless in this struggle to attain “something of essence in this world”. The only refuge is in Nibbana.

So, there is no way to become a Sotapanna if one believes anicca is impermanence, dukkha is suffering (not the cause of suffering), and anatta is “no self”.

Here is an important point that needs to be given some thought for those who believe anatta means “no self” I am not saying this in a derogatory way, but just to emphasize the importance of it. The true meanings have been covered not due to intentional acts by anyone, as I have explained in the post: https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... retations/.

The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.

Anicca – that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness in the long run.

Does this mean that there is something else in other worlds that will bring permanent happiness? If so, which world and what is that?

Dukkha – despite our struggles, we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures if we remain in the rebirth process. The truth about Dukkha is not the feeling of dukkha, but that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments.

I suffered because my dad was seriously sick. I have to deal with so many headache things to support him and I really did not want to see him struggling. My dad was sick not because I was craving for any enjoyments. What did I enjoy that made him sick?

Anatta – therefore, one is truly helpless in this struggle to attain “something of essence in this world”. The only refuge is in Nibbana.

When we say that one cannot attain "something of essence in this world". Does this mean that one may attain it in other world?. Can I attain something of essence in heaven? Why not? Is Nibbana a world? Does Nibbana have "something of essence" for me to attain? If so, what is that? and how can it free me from all sufferings?

One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

Anicca – that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness in the long run.

Does this mean that there is something else in other worlds that will bring permanent happiness? If so, which world and what is that?

There is no refuge anywhere in this world of 31 realms, including deva and brahma worlds. Of course we can “see” only two realms: animal and human realms. We cannot “see” television and cell phone signals, but they exist around us, because we can watch television and talk to a person outside the country using a cell phone. It takes a lot of effort to verify for oneself the existence of other realms. The only refuge is to stop the rebirth process. That is called Nibbana. That is where the permanent happiness is.

Dukkha – despite our struggles, we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures if we remain in the rebirth process. The truth about Dukkha is not the feeling of dukkha, but that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments.

I suffered because my dad was seriously sick. I have to deal with so many headache things to support him and I really did not want to see him struggling. My dad was sick not because I was craving for any enjoyments. What did I enjoy that made him sick?

Each one carries his/her own kamma.
Dad was suffering because of some bad deeds done by him either in this life or in past lives.
Whatever you do now (good or bad), you will reap corresponding results in the future, either in this life or in future lives.
In Buddha Dhamma, one cannot have a short-term view. Existence does not end with the end of this life. There are many people who get away with even murder in courts, but they will pay later in this life or in future lives.

Anatta – therefore, one is truly helpless in this struggle to attain “something of essence in this world”. The only refuge is in Nibbana.

When we say that one cannot attain "something of essence in this world". Does this mean that one may attain it in other world?. Can I attain something of essence in heaven? Why not? Is Nibbana a world? Does Nibbana have "something of essence" for me to attain? If so, what is that? and how can it free me from all sufferings?

This – as well as your above questions -- cannot be answered even in a few pages. I would suggest to read up on kamma/kamma vipaka, rebirth process, cause and effect, Nibbana, etc. There are many posts at the site:https://puredhamma.net/
And one can find relevant posts by using the “Search” button on top right.

Briefly, as I mentioned above “something of essence” is attained only in Nibbana.
One needs to understand what Buddha Dhamma is.

General comment: This is a problem that I see with many people in discussion forums. They quote from suttas, but have no basic understanding of the key message of the Buddha or a basic understanding of key concepts like kamma/kamma vipaka, rebirth process, cause and effect, Nibbana, etc. And they expect answers to their questions in one paragraph. That is impossible to do.

There is no refuge anywhere in this world of 31 realms, including deva and brahma worlds.

First, this is not included in your definition of Anicca. I think you can see that your definition is not completed while you are rejecting the common meaning of "impermance".

Second, how do you know? Do you have direct experience in 31 realms? The Buddha said that the Dhamma can be experienced here and now. Come and see. Whatever I cannot experience, I will set it aside for now.

You said that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments. My question is "what did I crave for enjoyments in that case?" Why did I suffer?

You said that “something of essence” is attained only in Nibbana. What is Nibbana? What is that "something of essence"? What it can do? Why it is attainable only in Nibbana? Do you know "that essence" by direct experience? Did you see somebody attained "that essense" in Nibbana?

To me, wherever there is a "I, my", there is/will be suffering no matter what or where that "I" is. I can see this very clearly here and now. This is a direct experience. Not through books, theories or speculation. Can you find any "my" that does/will not bring suffering?

I can see the impermanence of that "I, my" and the sufferings that they will bring to me when the condition is right. All of my love ones are impermanent. They are all subjected to old age, sickness and death,... All my possessions are subjected to theft, decay, missing,... When the time come, they will blow up and I will suffer. I am living in a mine field!

I can see the sufferings behind what I think "my happiness". I can feel the sufferings of a caring mother watching her "happiness, belove little child" dying in her hand. I can see that "belove little child" actually does not belong to that caring mother no matter what she think or try!

This is hard for anyone with full of craving for possession to see or accept. All we want is "more" for me, not "less".

If annata is unbeneficial. This means all phenomena are unbeneficial. However, I see my house is very beneficial for me during the rainning season (even if it is impermanent). When I am hungry, the little food that I got was very beneficial to me...
I can see the Buddha Dhamma is very beneficial to me, so I can see the truth.
If they are not beneficial, why do we need them?

As a Dhamma's friend, I suggest that you may want to take a hard look to your view. If you think you are correct, Great! ignore what I said.
If your view is incorrect and you cling to it. You will harm not only yourself, but a lot of other people because you are trying to teach others the wrong Dhamma! This will not without horrible consequences for a very long time no matter how noble your intention is.

I see that you are very much cling to your view, so I will no longer try to question your view. This is the last response I am making to this post.
Thanks for your feedback to my comment.

One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

Good Dhamma talk on Anapanasati Sutta by Ve. Abhayaratanalankaraa. (Sinhalese language)
I hope Lal may have a translation for this.
==========
- Anapana Sati was practiced even before the Buddhas time
- Anapana Sati taught by Buddha consist of four Satipathanas
=============
-He gives a new interpretation to:
"Herein, monks, a monk who has gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down cross-legged, holding his back erect, arousing mindfulness in front of him."
Forest: Does not mean physically moving to a forest.
Foot of a Tree means steady mind
Empty place means the emptiness of the mind.
Sit down cross legged means reduced superiority complex (Mana).
Back erect means righteousness.
Mindfulness in front of him means the mindfulness of the six senses.
========
There is a connection of four Satipathana and Jhanas and Nibbana.

 Translated, "..Ānāpānassati, when used (bhāvitā) and used frequently (bahulīkatā), cultivates four types of Satipattāna. Cattāro satipaṭṭhāna, when used and used frequently cultivates Sapta Bojjanga. Sapta Bojjanga when used and used frequently leads to the full release (Nibbana or Arahanthood)".

 Exactly the same statement was made in the Ananda Sutta (SN 54.13). In fact, most of the suttas in Ānāpāna Saṃyutta (SN 54) has that or the following phrase, "..“Ānāpānassati, bhikkhave, bhāvitā bahulīkatā mahapphalā hoti mahānisaṃsā". Here, "mahappalā" means the four Noble phala: Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arahant.

 Therefore, it is quite clear that Ānāpānassati, by itself, can lead to all the way to the Arahanthood.

2. The question is, "Can breath meditation, by itself, lead to Arahanthood? I think this is the first question that needs to contemplated by those who believe that Ānāpānassati means breath meditation.

3. The conventional (and erroneous teaching by most Thervadins to day) is that one needs to get to samadhi with Ānāpānassati and then one needs to do Vipassana or insight mediation to attain magga phala.

 However, from the above suttas it is quite clear that Ānāpānassati by itself can lead to even the Arahanthood! Therefore,Ānāpānassati is much deeper than keeping one's mind on the breath.

4. This incorrect version of Ānāpānassati was there even before the Buddha. In the Arittha Sutta (SN 54.06), the Buddha, upon finding out that Bhikkhu Arittha was practicing the incorrect breath meditation as Ānāpānassati told him, "..Atthesā, ariṭṭha, ānāpānassati, nesā natthī’ti vadāmi. Api ca, ariṭṭha, yathā ānāpānassati vitthārena paripuṇṇā hoti taṃ suṇāhi, sādhukaṃ manasi karohi; bhāsissāmī”ti.

 Translated, "..There is that ānāpānassati, Arittha. I don't say that there isn't. But I will describe the real (yathā) ānāpānassati, listen and pay close attention. I will speak."

 Furthermore, that incorrect version of breath meditation was used by yogis at that time even to attain higher jhana. However, those anariya jhana are attained by just SUPPRESSING defilements (raga, dosa, moha), and will not lead to ANY magga phala. Those who cultivate such anariya jhana will also have next birth in Brahma realms, but after that they can be reborn even in the apayas.

SarathW said, -He gives a new interpretation to:
"Herein, monks, a monk who has gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down cross-legged, holding his back erect, arousing mindfulness in front of him."
Forest: Does not mean physically moving to a forest.

To quote from the above post on the translation of "rukkhamula":
“rukkha” is “tree” and “mūla” is the “root”; even though the top of a tree sways back and forth with the wind, the tree trunk close to the root is very stable. Thus “rukkhamūla gatō vā” means getting to a stable mindset. In the conventional interpretation is says, “having gone to the foot of a tree”.

As mentioned in that post, both interpretations can be used, i.e., those days it was not uncommon to "go a foot of a tree" and meditate. But the deeper meaning is more important. The other terms have deeper meanings too as discussed there.

Kayanupassana is being mindful of the immoral actions by the body and speech (which also involves moving body parts). However, fulfilling Kayanupassana (and attaining the Soatapanna stage) also requires some grasp of anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Vedananupassana is being mindful of the feelings and get rid of “samphassa ja vedana”.

Cittanunupassana is being mindful of the thoughts and get rid of subtle defilements in thoughts.

Dhammanupassana is getting rid of the last bit defilements by fully comprehending anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Roughly speaking, one attains Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, and Arahant stages when each of those four are fulfilled. So, Cittanupassana and Dhammanupassana are needed at later stages.

Dear sir,
Some of Waharaka Theros sermons are controversial. These controversies have been publicly discussed recently at the public event held recently at the Ruawanweli Maha Stupa in Anuradhapura, which was broadcast on the Buddhist Channel and Sirasa TV on Saturday 12th of May. These sources have been shown to deviate from the Therawada tradition by the venerable Sangha who gathered on that day.
Best regards and metta

If you do not have a link to the broadcast, please summarize the key points so that I can respond.

I have not found a single inconsistency within the Tipitaka per teachings of the Waharaka Thero. Inconsistencies arise when people try to match the material in Tipitaka with later commentaries, such as those by Buddhaghosa.